Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
catbasket said:
How on earth does what I posted support your claim this proves you right?

So you are a kind of a person that first shoots, then asks.

Please reverse it, if you wish to first understand what you shoot at, then please start by reading:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf

To further abuse the coin 'Heads' AND/OR 'Tails' (NOT) analogy - you have completely failed to get the elastic band!
Yes I know that you have completely failed to get the elastic band!

Why are you talking to yourself?
catbasket said:
Clearly you are incapable of getting that under catbasket revised Organic Mathematics the '+' is merely a local representation of the non-local aspect!
Let us play your silly game.

By your silly game you think that a representation ('+') is the same as the represented (the non-local aspect).

So first, you have to learn how to play silly games, then you can play it.
 
Last edited:
ON use Distinction as their first-order properties, where conventional mathematics is nothing but the particular case of crisp Distinction, as if it is the universal principle of the foundations of this science.

So, conventional maths can tell me which is better, Cheese and Onion or Salt and Vinegar?
 
So you are a kind of a person that first shoots, then asks.
I do not even own a gun.

Yes I know that you have completely failed to get the elastic band!
It is evident from your own words that is you that does not get the elastic band. Prove me wrong!

Why are you talking to yourself?
Please stop interrupting my soliloquyWP.

Let us play your silly game.
Cool! My silly game of choice is Pin-Pango Dice. I pick the red counters, bid two no trumps and play Bishop to Actress1. Your move.

By your silly game you think that a representation ('+') is the same as the represented (the non-local aspect).
That is not what I said. Your logic is flawed. 'Representation' and 'non-local' 'aspects' play no part in Pin-Pango Dice.

So first, you have to learn how to play silly games, then you can play it.
I think you missed the word 'too' from the end of that sentence.
 
Here you have missed it again. "In relation to …" means that we are focused on the relation aspect (the non-local aspect) that exists between the parts.

Oh so you are not focused on the ‘parts’ because you are focused on the ‘parts’?


No The Man, The coin is exactly a Whole\Parts thing or Non-local\Local thing. You simply do not get this simple beauty and continue to force your partial X OR Y Local-only reasoning on the coin.

Doron the focus on parts is yours as is the partial reasoning.

Again, NO.

The coin is exactly a Whole\Parts thing or Non-local\Local thing.

Doron whole and parts are not synonymous with local and non-local.

Wrong. A flip cannot be in more than a one and only one part's state of the coin.

Again with the misuse of the word ‘state’ do you even know what it means. Each ‘flip’ of a coin includes both a ‘left part’ and a ‘right part’ of the coin and thus would be non-local by your definition.

No.

A rubber band shows the non-local aspect of the coin.

Again Doron a different partition or no partition of the coin gives different results. Your definitions of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ are entirely based on your partitioning and thus the resulting parts or lack thereof. This is again evident in your insistence that parts and whole translate to local and non-local in your fantasy language.


A flip shows the local aspect of the coin.

Again depending on how you partition the coin. Not only are you entirely focused on the ‘parts’ aspect of the coin you are also limiting yourself to just one pair of particular parts of that coin.

The coin itself is not totally non-local and not totally local.

No Doron the coin is totally local to itself by the standard application of ‘local’ meaning ‘in the vicinity of’.

The coin itself is exactly non-local\local thing (a whole\parts thing in your language).

No Doron, local and non-local are not the same as parts and whole in English, that they are in your fantasy language is your problem.

Thank you.

Indeed "the man uses only the 'parts view' as the basis of his definitions of 'local' and 'non-local'".


No The Man, you do not get your own words.
Doron the definitions were your's as is the requirement of ‘parts’ for those definitions, obviously Doron does not ‘get’ his own definitions or notions.
 
Last edited:
Oh so you are not focused on the ‘parts’ because you are focused on the ‘parts’?

The Man thank you for clearly support my claim about your reasoning.

You force the researched Whole\Parts universe to be understood only in terms of 'parts', 'partition', etc.

As a result your reasoning totally ignores the Whole aspect of the universe and fails to get it as a Whole\Parts thing.

I clearly show exactly how Whole\Parts is the same as Non-locality\Locality, by logically provide the different tautologies that stand at the basis of any researched universe, here its is again:

You call it Whole\Parts.

I call it Non-locality\Locality.


We are talking on the same thing, but you ignore the Whole and use only its Part's view.


[in]out = Whole = Non-locality

[in]out , [in]out = Parts = Locality


( ([in]out) = (in AND out) = the tautology of Non-locality ) ≠ ( ([in]out , [in]out) = (in OR out) = the tautology of Locality )

There is no use to dialog with you anymore, because there is no use to talk about the stereoscopic view of the universe with somebody that insists to use a one eye.

( Your 'one eye view' has no chance to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693012&postcount=2715 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4692830&postcount=2714 )

doronshadmi said:
If you are using a rubber band, then you are focused only on its whole aspect (the tautology of this use is 'tails' AND 'heads', where a rubber band must be simultaneously 'tails' AND 'heads' (NOT('tails' AND 'heads') is a contradiction from rubber band's (Non-local) point of view)).
The Man said:
If you are using the rubber band in relation to your partitioned ‘parts’ then you are still ‘focused on the parts aspect‘.
Here is a typical example of your 'one eye view' reasoning.

Because of your 'one eye view' reasoning you do not get that the rubber band analogy is focused on the relation and not on the parts. You do not need more than that in order to totally fail to get the stereoscopic Whole (Non-local)\Parts (Local) view of the concept of Universe.
 
Last edited:
So, conventional maths can tell me which is better, Cheese and Onion or Salt and Vinegar?
No, conventional maths can tell you that there are Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar.

It does not tell you which is better or how Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar exist, in the first place.
 
So, go on, what does ON do?

They show you how these things come to existence, and help you to research their relations in order to find your best choice of how to use them, where the choice is based on both Whole (Non-local) and Parts (Local) considerations.
 
Last edited:
Brilliant!

I didn’t paid enough attention to notation (I personally tend to ignore them if you understand what it means), it is very common to change notation if you state what it means (in many areas they not only change notation and convention has it is imperative to do so), but your statement is none of the less correct.

However a (sum) partition can also be a set (and in this case is), because he represented has a group of elements independently of what they mean (of course he means to sum the elements of the group in order to reproduce the partitioned number), unless of course I miss interpreted the English word set. A miss interpretation of the question is not however the reason why he didn’t answer my questions, because he did realised what I mean.
He did not answer the question because for him to give an honest answer he is forced to conclude that he missed something very important, and that would simply invalidate what he is doing, in this case he missed a mean of quantification and a definition of order.

This has to be the most astounding discovery since TimeCube! My dear Sir, this is nothing less than the unified field / free energy / zero vector / missing link universal convergence proof! Congratulations and get ready for Mr. Nobel to laud you along with world academia and heads of state for your life changing contribution of mankind.
 
They show you how these things come to existence, and help you to research their relations in order to find your best choice of how to use them, where the choice is based on both Whole (Non-local) and Parts (Local) considerations.

Go on, then, tell us how ON shows how Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar come into existence.
 
Go on, then, tell us how ON shows how Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar come into existence.

By the interaction between the Non-local (Whole) and the Local (Parts).

For example:

a = Cheese , b = Onion , c = Salt , d = Vinegar .

If the Whole is represented as a line and a,b,c,d are represented by a point then ON 4 is:

abcd.jpg


Conventional maths is based only on the last form of the example above.
 
Last edited:
The Man thank you for clearly support my claim about your reasoning.

You force the researched Whole\Parts universe to be understood only in terms of 'parts', 'partition', etc.

As a result your reasoning totally ignores the Whole aspect of the universe and fails to get it as a Whole\Parts thing.

Well you’re the one basing his definitions of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ on how many ‘parts’ they involve.


I clearly show exactly how Whole\Parts is the same as Non-locality\Locality, by logically provide the different tautologies that stand at the basis of any researched universe, here its is again:

Again Doron you confuse you simply claiming something to be ‘clearly showing’ something, other then just ‘clearly showing’ that you like to make baseless claims.


There is no use to dialog with you anymore, because there is no use to talk about the stereoscopic view of the universe with somebody that insists to use a one eye.

Oh no, not the no dialog dialog again!!!!


( Your 'one eye view' has no chance to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693012&postcount=2715 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4692830&postcount=2714 )


Here is a typical example of your 'one eye view' reasoning.

Because of your 'one eye view' reasoning you do not get that the rubber band analogy is focused on the relation and not on the parts. You do not need more than that in order to totally fail to get the stereoscopic Whole (Non-local)\Parts (Local) view of the concept of Universe.

“focused on the Relation” of what?

Here you have missed it again. "In relation to …" means that we are focused on the relation aspect (the non-local aspect) that exists between the parts.

Oh no, did you say ‘between the parts’?

Without parts Doron there is just the whole so your “Whole\Parts” notion is entirely focused on there being, well, parts.

Try opening at least one of your eyes, if only partially, when you type and actually try to read what you write.
 
Well you’re the one basing his definitions of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ on how many ‘parts’ they involve.

No, a reseachable universe has the concept of "meny" iff there is a non-local atom between local atoms (for example: ._____.) .

Without the Whole (Non-local) \ Part (Local) interaction (where ___ atom is not . atom), the concept of "meny" (including "one of meny") does not hold.

"turned into one" (in the case of Universe) is not "turned into a one of meny". The "one" of "turned into one" is the Whole (the non-local aspect of the Universe, which is notated as "____").

More about your inability to get the concept of "Universe" can be shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693012&postcount=2715 .


Without parts Doron there is just the whole so your “Whole\Parts” notion is entirely focused on there being, well, parts.

No, without Whole\Parts there is no reseachable Universe.

Here is some example: ._____. where "______" represents Whole and "." represents Part

“focused on the Relation” of what?

Simply on the relation, represented as _____

X = Whole = relation = Non-local

Y = Part = Local

"focused on X" does not mean the the Y aspect of X\Y universe is totally ignored.

The tautology of ____ in ____\. universe is (. AND .)

The tautology of . in ____\. universe is (. OR .)

(. AND .) is not (. OR .) exactly as ___ is not .

Here is the Whole\Parts Universe:

Code:
.    . = Part = local  
|    |
[U]|[/U]____[U]|[/U] = Whole = relation = non-local

The Man said:
Oh no, did you say ‘between the parts’?

Without parts Doron there is just the whole so your “Whole\Parts” notion is entirely focused on there being, well, parts.
Again, "focused on X" does not mean the we totally ignore the aspect of X\Y that is not under focus.

If we totally ignore Y, then X becomes total and non-researchable (and vice versa).

You still do not get X\Y researchable universe, where X of the X\Y universe is not total X, and Y of X\Y universe is not total Y.

Try opening at least one of your eyes, if only partially, when you type and actually try to read what you write.
Ye, try to open your other eye, because your one opened eye can see only . (the Part aspect of the Whole (Non-local) \ Parts (Local) Univerese).
 
Last edited:
No, a reseachable universe has the concept of "meny" iff there is a non-local atom between local atoms (for example: ._____.) .

Without the Whole (Non-local) \ Part (Local) interaction (where ___ atom is not . atom), the concept of "meny" (including "one of meny") does not hold.

Which ‘atoms’ would these be again, your indivisible and non-composite ‘atoms’ or your ‘atoms’ composed as a division?

"turned into one" (in the case of Universe) is not "turned into a one of meny". The "one" of "turned into one" is the Whole (the non-local aspect of the Universe, which is notated as "____").

More about your inability to get the concept of "Universe" can be shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693012&postcount=2715 .

So you simply presume the universe is not ‘one of many’.


No, without Whole\Parts there is no reseachable Universe.

Technically, Doron, it is only the ‘parts’ that make it researchable or a even a ‘whole’. Lose just one 'part' and there is a hole in your whole, but then specificity has never been your forte.

Here is some example: ._____. where "______" represents Whole and "." represents Part

What is this, now your are claiming that “.” is ‘part’ of “_______”!!! You better watch out next thing you’ll be saying is that two points “. .” define a line “_____”, which in your Doronograms might just look like this “._____.”.


Simply on the relation, represented as _____

The tautology of ____ in ____\. universe is (. AND .)

The tautology of . in ____\. universe is (. OR .)

(. AND .) is not (. OR .) exactly as ___ is not .

Here is the Whole\Parts Universe:

Code:
.    . = Part = local  
|    |
[U]|[/U]____[U]|[/U] = Whole = relation = non-local

Well there we have it ladies and gentlemen the ‘whole’ universe represented by a Doronogram, how amazing.


Ye, try to open your other eye, because your one opened eye can see only . (the Part aspect of the Whole (Non-local) \ Parts (Local) Univerese.

“...But men shulde leve
Wel more thing then men han seen with ye!
Men shal not wenen every thing a lye
But yf himself yt seeth, or elles dooth;”

Geoffrey Chaucer 1385
The Legend of Good Women. The Prologue 1.10
 
The Men said:
So you simply presume the universe is not ‘one of many’.
No.

I show that you do not understand the word "one" of "turned into one".

This "one" is what enables the parts to be gathered, and it is essentially not any one of the gathered parts.

Each part is a "one of many" thing.

The "one" that gathers the parts is not "a one of many" thing.

______ is the one that gathers the many and it is Non-local by nature.

. is "a one of many" thing and it is Local by nature.

_____ thing is not the sum of . things, but within a given universe it is the one that enables . to be summarized.

By your one eye view you do not see beyond . (the Part).

Let us expose your blindness of the Whole:
The Men said:
Technically, Doron, it is only the ‘parts’ that make it researchable or a even a ‘whole’.
Essentially you do not get that a researchable universe is not less than ___\. thing where ___ is the gatherer and . is the gathered.

Furthermore, no finite or infinitely many . is ____ , or in other words, each . is "a one of many" thing of some universe, where ____ is not "a one of many" thing of that universe.

The tautology of ____ of the ____\. Universe is (. AND .)(we are focused on ____ aspect of ___\. Universe, but not totally ignore . aspect of it).

The tautology of . of the ____\. Universe is (. OR .) .)(we are focused on . aspect of ___\. Universe, but not totally ignore _____ aspect of it).
The Man said:
What is this, now your are claiming that “.” is ‘part’ of “_______”!!! You better watch out next thing you’ll be saying is that two points “. .” define a line “_____”, which in your Doronograms might just look like this “._____.”.
No, your one eye view claiming that.

Since I am using two eyes (eye ____ \ eye .) to understand the universe, I know that ____ is not made of .
, for example:

__._.__

, and no matter how many . are gathered by _____, they are not gathered "up to" _____ simply because ______ is the non-local atom of ____\. universe, and . is the local atom of ____\. universe (the same universe).

____\. uinverse is beyond the "one eye" viewers, and you, The Man, are such a viewr.


There is no use to talk to a one eye viewer, because he can't get ____\.

The Man said:
“...But men shulde leve
Wel more thing then men han seen with ye!
Men shal not wenen every thing a lye
But yf himself yt seeth, or elles dooth;”
Now you are talkin', you booga booga cyclops. (By cyclops view, take the parts and nothing is left, or in other words: the Whole is an illusion).

By Organic Mathematics: take the Part and the Whole is left (total connectivity (string)), take the Whole and the Part is left (total isolation (bead)).
The Man said:
Which ‘atoms’ would these be again, your indivisible and non-composite ‘atoms’ or your ‘atoms’ composed as a division?
The cyclops can't get the idea of 'atom' as a thing that is not based (not mande of) on other thing.

The atom of the Whole (____ = the string) is not made of the atom of the Part (. = the bead), The atom of the Part (. = the bead) is not made of the atom of the Whole (____ = the string).
 
Last edited:
Let us make sense of it like this:

Each cardinal > 1 is defined by a recursion of two basic states of Distinction, which are:

1) Superposition of Ids (the id of a given element is not crisp).

Superposition of ids of a given element is notated as n , where n = 2 → ∞


2) Crisp id of the given element is notated as n where n=1


Each serial observation of some Organic Number can be shown by first using the partition of some cardinal, for example, the ordered partitions of cardinal 4 are:
Code:
1 1 1 1 

2 1 1 

2 2 

3 1 

4


Now by using Distinction as the leading property of the research, we look for the association of crisp and non-crisp ids of each element, by using recursion, where each recursion is closed under some cardinal, where some partition is a collection of cardinals, for example:

-------------------------------------------
Under the partition 1 1 1 1, we have exactly 1 Distinct form of non-crisp ids, notated as:
Code:
 1 1 1 1  = partition 
([U]4[/U],[U]4[/U],[U]4[/U],[U]4[/U]) = distinction
where 4 means that each element (under cardinal 1) has a superposition of 4 ids.
-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------
Under the partition 2 1 1, we have exactly 2 Distinct forms of non-crisp or crisp ids, notated as:


Code:
  2  1 1  = partition 
([U]2[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]4[/U],[U]4[/U]) = distinction
where 4 means that each element (under cardinal 1) has a superposition of 4 ids, and 2 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a superposition of 2 ids.

Code:
  2  1 1  = partition 
([U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]4[/U],[U]4[/U]) = distinction
where 4 means that each element (under cardinal 1) has a superposition of 4 ids, and 1 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a crisp id.
-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------
Under the partition 2 2, we have exactly 3 Distinct forms of non-crisp or crisp ids, notated as:

Code:
  2   2   = partition 
([U]2[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]2[/U]) = distinction
where 2 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a superposition of 2 ids.

Code:
  2   2   = partition 
([U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]2[/U]) = distinction
where 2 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a superposition of 2 ids, and 1 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a crisp id.

Code:
  2   2   = partition 
([U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U]) = distinction
where 1 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a crisp id.
-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------
Under the partition 3 1, we have exactly 3 Distinct forms of non-crisp or crisp ids, notated as:

Code:
   3   1  = partition 
([U]3[/U],[U]3[/U],[U]3[/U],[U]1[/U]) = distinction
where 3 means that each element (under cardinal 3) has a superposition of 3 ids, and 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1) has a crisp id.

Code:
   3   1  = partition 
  2  1,1  = partition 
([U]2[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U]) = distinction
where 2 means that each element (under cardinal 2, which is under cardinal 3) has a superposition of 2 ids, 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1, which is under cardinal 3) has a crisp id, and another 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1) has a crisp id.

Code:
   3   1  = partition 
  2  1,1  = partition 
([U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U]) = distinction
where 1 means that each element (under cardinal 2, which is under cardinal 3) has a crisp id, another 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1, which is under cardinal 3) has a crisp id, and another 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1) has a crisp id.

-------------------------------------------


4=4 and has 0 partitons.


Organic Number 4 is the result of universe ____\. , such that 4 = _____ and 1 = . , gathered by ______
 
Last edited:
No.

I show that you do not understand the word "one" of "turned into one".

This "one" is what enables the parts to be gathered, and it is essentially not any one of the gathered parts.

Each part is a "one of many" thing.

The "one" that gathers the parts is not "a one of many" thing.

______ is the one that gathers the many and it is Non-local by nature.

. is "a one of many" thing and it is Local by nature.

_____ thing is not the sum of . things, but within a given universe it is the one that enables . to be summarized.

By your one eye view you do not see beyond . (the Part).

Again claming is not ‘showing’ Doron, if it were than anything could be ‘shown’.

Let us expose your blindness of the Whole:

I notice how you did not include my subsequent statement about the potential for a ‘hole in your whole’, again making the blindness and ignorance wholly yours.

Essentially you do not get that a researchable universe is not less than ___\. thing where ___ is the gatherer and . is the gathered.

As always you have no idea what research is or how to use it to substantiate your claims. Furthermore, as previously noted by jsfisher, you seem to be fixated on anthropomorphism giving your notion of ‘whole’ the responsibility of ‘gathering’ its required parts.

Furthermore, no finite or infinitely many . is ____ , or in other words, each . is "a one of many" thing of some universe, where ____ is not "a one of many" thing of that universe.

The tautology of ____ of the ____\. Universe is (. AND .)(we are focused on ____ aspect of ___\. Universe, but not totally ignore . aspect of it).

The tautology of . of the ____\. Universe is (. OR .) .)(we are focused on . aspect of ___\. Universe, but not totally ignore _____ aspect of it).

No, your one eye view claiming that.


Since I am using two eyes (eye ____ \ eye .) to understand the universe, I know that ____ is not made of .
, for example:

__._.__

Trust me Doron we all know what your notions ‘are made of’ and you might want to actually get your brain in there, preferably somewhere between you eyes.

, and no matter how many . are gathered by _____, they are not gathered "up to" _____ simply because ______ is the non-local atom of ____\. universe, and . is the local atom of ____\. universe (the same universe).

Which ‘atoms’ would these be again, your indivisible and non-composite ‘atoms’ or your ‘atoms’ composed as a division?




____\. uinverse is beyond the "one eye" viewers, and you, The Man, are such a viewr.


There is no use to talk to a one eye viewer, because he can't get ____\.

Doron your talking does not seem to be of much use to anyone, but you.

Now you are talkin', you booga booga cyclops.

Hey now, just who do you think you are calling ‘booga booga’? One of my neighbors was named ‘booga booga’, you might have read about him in Homer’s Odyssey but his brother, Polyphemus, was more popular and got included in the story instead. Poor booga booga was quite upset having missed out on all that fame (polyphemus now meaning ‘famous’) and fortune (all the people he could eat) it was a very sore subject in the local islands for a whole millennium or two.

(By cyclops view, take the parts and nothing is left, or in other words: the Whole is an illusion).

The only thing that is an illusion on this thread, Doron, is your notions.

By Organic Mathematics: take the Part and the Whole is left (total connectivity (string)), take the Whole and the Part is left (total isolation (bead)).

So just what are your ‘parts’ part of if not your ‘whole’? Which apparently now does not require any ‘parts’ to be a ‘whole’? So you are now claiming that your ‘parts’ actually have no relation to your ‘whole’. In case you missed it with both your eyes sans your brain, the ‘string’ is as much ‘part’ of the ‘necklace’ as are the ‘beads’ in your analogy.

The cyclops can't get the idea of 'atom' as a thing that is not based (not mande of) on other thing.

Oh so now your notions have no ‘parts’? Well that solves everything doesn’t it? Certainly there are no consistent parts to your notions other then contradiction.

The atom of the Whole (____ = the string) is not made of the atom of the Part (. = the bead), The atom of the Part (. = the bead) is not made of the atom of the Whole (____ = the string).

Well your misunderstanding in that is simply because you have misplaced your ‘whole’. The ‘whole’ is the ‘string’ with ‘beads’ which are both just ‘parts’ of that ‘whole’. Try using your brain and your eyes as parts of your ‘whole’ instead of just pulling things out of your ‘hole’
 
Let us make sense of it like this:
I was with you up to here...

Each cardinal > 1 is defined by a recursion of two basic states of Distinction, which are:

1) Superposition of Ids (the id of a given element is not crisp).

Superposition of ids of a given element is notated as n , where n = 2 → ∞


2) Crisp id of the given element is notated as n where n=1
And what is your definition of 'crisp'? How do you distinguish between those two ids, both referred to as n? What do they mean, and what do you do with them?
Organic Number 4 is the result of universe ____\. , such that 4 = _____ and 1 = . , gathered by ______

And?
 
I notice how you did not include my subsequent statement about the potential for a ‘hole in your whole’, again making the blindness and ignorance wholly yours.
Since the whole (the non-local aspect of the universe) is not made of parts (the local aspects of the universe) it does not have holes, if some parts do not exist.
Well your misunderstanding in that is simply because you have misplaced your ‘whole’. The ‘whole’ is the ‘string’ with ‘beads’ which are both just ‘parts’ of that ‘whole’. Try using your brain and your eyes as parts of your ‘whole’ instead of just pulling things out of your ‘hole’
Well your misunderstanding in that is simply because you have misplaced your ‘whole’.

Whole is not the sum of the Parts of some universe. Whole is the property of the Whole\Parts universe, that gathers the Parts of this universe.

The universe called necklace has two aspects, the Whole aspect and the Part aspect.

The Whole is the non-local (string) aspect of the necklace that enables parts to be gathered, and the Parts (beads) are the gathered things.

The necklace is a Whole\Parts thing, where the Whole aspect of this thing is not any of the Parts aspect of that same thing.

You simply do not get the universe as a Whole\Parts thing.

Let us see the Whole\Parts universe of, for example, cardinal fore.

By the standard reasoning cardinal fore is 4=1+1+1+1 where 4 is focused on the Whole aspect (understood as the sum aspect of the cardinal) and 1+1+1+1 is focused on the Parts aspect (understood as some arithmetic aspect of the cardinal).

By the standard reasoning 4 or 1+1+1+1 are nothing but different representations of the same thing, called cardinal.

But this reasoning misses the fact that the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the magnitude of existence of the gathered Parts (the sum of the parts).

For example : number fore of the Whole\Parts universe is _._._._._ (where no infinitely many . (Parts) can be ______)

(actually the Man's reasoning uses ______ under the name +, so 1+1+1+1 = _._._._._ , but The Man's reasoning misses the understanding of + as a thing that its magnitude of existence > the magnitude of existence of the gathered 1 things)

By getting Cardinality as a Whole\Parts universe, Organic Numbers are available for research.

The Man's reasoning of the concept of Universe cannot get the Organic Numbers.

On the contrary, OM's reasoning clearly shows how the outcome of The Man's reasoning is nothing but a particular case of OM's reasoning.

-------------------------------------------------------

By Organic Mathematics the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Strong emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence ).

By Conventional Mathematics the magnitude of existence of the Whole = the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Weak emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence ).
 
Last edited:
Since the whole (the non-local aspect of the universe) is not made of parts (the local aspects of the universe) it does not have holes, if some parts do not exist.

Well your ‘whole/parts’ notion of the universe certainly has holes since you are now claiming that ‘whole’ is not dependent on the inclusion or omissions of its ‘parts’

Well your misunderstanding in that is simply because you have misplaced your ‘whole’.

Whole is not the sum of the Parts of some universe. Whole is the property of the Whole\Parts universe, that gathers the Parts of this universe.

Again giving the trait of ‘gathering’ to you notion of the ‘whole’, that 'gathers' parts without requiring, well, parts, the holes seem to be the only parts you have gathered for your notions.

The universe called necklace has two aspects, the Whole aspect and the Part aspect.

The Whole is the non-local (string) aspect of the necklace that enables parts to be gathered, and the Parts (beads) are the gathered things.

The necklace is a Whole\Parts thing, where the Whole aspect of this thing is not any of the Parts aspect of that same thing.

You simply do not get the universe as a Whole\Parts thing

You simple do not understand the meaning of whole.

Let us see the Whole\Parts universe of, for example, cardinal fore.

By the standard reasoning cardinal fore is 4=1+1+1+1 where 4 is focused on the Whole aspect (understood as the sum of the cardinal) and 1+1+1+1 is focused on the Parts aspect (understood as some arithmetic of the cardinal).

A number does not have cardinality but a set does, the cardinality of a set containing the number 4 like {4} would have a cardinality of 1 while the set {1,2,3,4} would have a cardinality of 4 as would the set {number, is, not, cardinality}. Your understanding of cardinality (or 'cardinal' whatever that is) is clearly lacking.

By the standard reasoning 4 or 1+1+1+1 are nothing but different representations of the same thing, called cardinal.

No Doron just the same thing called the value of 4 (not cardinality or ‘cardinal’). By your reasoning since the speed of my car and the temperature outside had the same value this morning they must also both be additionally “different representations of the same thing, called cardinal”. It would seem in your universe everything is just a “different representations of the same thing, called cardinal”.



But this reasoning misses the fact that the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the magnitude of existence of the gathered Parts.

Well seeing as you have missed the ‘reasoning’ you claimed to be referring to before, the rest is just your misplaced ‘reasoning’.

For example : number fore of the Whole\Parts universe is _._._._._ (where no infinitely many . (Parts) can be ______)

(actually the Man's reasoning uses ______ under the name +, so 1+1+1+1 = _._._._._ , but The Man's reasoning misses the understanding of + as a thing that its magnitude of existence > the magnitude of existence of the gathered 1 things)

By getting Cardinality as a Whole\Parts universe, Organic Numbers are available for research.

The Man's reasoning of the concept of Universe cannot get the Organic Numbers.

On the contrary, OM's reasoning clearly shows how the outcome of The Man's reasoning is nothing but a particular case of OM's reasoning.


I am quite capable of clearly expressing and supporting my own reasoning. Given your demonstrative problems expressing your reasoning without contradicting yourself, perhaps you should spend more time working on your reasoning and less time pretending to understand the reasoning of others. Of course you could always just do some research and actually study the reasoning of others but that in your case is precluded by your innate tendency to supplant your reasoning onto others and into what you read.
 
By Organic Mathematics the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Strong emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence ).

By Conventional Mathematics (The Man's reasoning) the magnitude of existence of the Whole = the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Weak emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence ).
The Man said:
Well your ‘whole/parts’ notion of the universe certainly has holes since you are now claiming that ‘whole’ is not dependent on the inclusion or omissions of its ‘parts’
An atom cannot have holes.

The Man said:
Again giving the trait of ‘gathering’ to you notion of the ‘whole’, that 'gathers' parts without requiring, well, parts, the holes seem to be the only parts you have gathered for your notions.
Nonesene.

The string (the whole aspect) of some necklace exists independently of the gathered beads.
The Man said:
A number does not have cardinality
The Man said:
It would seem in your universe everything is just a “different representations of the same thing, called cardinal”.
My example is about cardinal. That's all.
The Man said:
I am quite capable of clearly expressing and supporting my own reasoning.
This is the problem. You see only your reasoning. As a result you don't get OM's reasoning.

Furthermore, by forcing your reasoning on OM's reasoning you indeed get only contradiction.

But this is your problem, not mine.
 
Last edited:
By Organic Mathematics the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Strong emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence ).

By Conventional Mathematics (The Man's reasoning) the magnitude of existence of the Whole = the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Weak emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence ).

Conventional mathematics has no property, value, concept, relation or anything referred to as “magnitude of existence” that I know of, you seem to be confusing your fantasies with reality again.

Emergence both strong and weak is still dependent on all the ‘parts’ involved, some of which simply may not be readily apparent, particularly in the case of the perception of ‘strong emergence’, but wait you have claimed…

Since the whole (the non-local aspect of the universe) is not made of parts (the local aspects of the universe) it does not have holes, if some parts do not exist.

So since those ‘parts’ are apparently not part of your ‘whole’, then neither is any emergent property resulting from the combination of the ‘parts’, strong or weak.


An atom cannot have holes.

Which of your ‘atoms’ would that be again, your ‘atom’ you claimed was indivisible and non-composite or when you claimed the speed of light and Pi were ‘atoms’ which are both composed as divisions?

Nonesene.

Well then it certainly fits with your notions.

The string (the whole aspect) of some necklace exists independently of the gathered beads.

Again demonstrating that you simply do not understand the meaning of the word ‘whole’, the ‘necklace’ is the ‘whole’ of which both the ‘string’ and the ‘beads’ are just ‘parts’. What is this tendency you seem to have to simply pick two words like ‘whole and part’, ‘local and non-local’, ‘serial and parallel’ or ‘relation and element’, then make a bunch of claims that have absolutely no relation to the actual meaning of those words. It seems you just want a dichotomy and simply do not seem to care how you get it.

My example is about cardinal. That's all.

Your example is and your notions are nonsense, that is all.

This is the problem. You see only your reasoning. As a result you don't get OM's reasoning.

OM has no reasoning, Doron, that is why you always end up contradicting yourself, which is the only emergent property of your notions.

Furthermore, by forcing your reasoning on OM's reasoning you indeed get only contradiction.

Dorn you are the one claiming the involved parts of a domain as your definitions of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ then claim not to be focusing on the ‘parts’, since your ‘whole’ does require those parts anyway because the actual ‘whole’ (your ‘necklace’) is not what you are referring to as the ‘whole’ which it turns out is just the ‘string’ and actually just another ‘part’ of that ‘whole’ ‘necklace’. Doron you couldn’t ‘force’ ‘reasoning’ onto this tripe with a bulldozer.

But this is your problem. not mine.

Your notions, Doron, thus your problems.
 
The Man you simply forcing "Weak emergence" on "Strong emergence".

The Man said:
the actual ‘whole’ (your ‘necklace’) is not what you are referring to as the ‘whole’

Whole is Fullness.

Necklace is a collection.

The cardinal of a collection < cardinal of Fullness ( = ).


There is no use to talk with you anymore, because you have no ability to get a "Strong emergence" reasoning.

The Man said:
Doron you couldn’t ‘force’ ‘reasoning’ onto this tripe with a bulldozer.

This is exactly what you are doing by forcing "Weak emergence" on "Strong emergence".

Here is some analogy that shows why The Man does not understand the concept of Whole of Strong Emergence.

According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence.

If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a thing that is less than total existence.

This addition of parts is equivalent to adding cold water to hot water, for example:

If the temperature of the water is 100 and we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110. Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100.

The same holds about Whole and Necklace.

The Whole is greater than the result of Whole+Parts (= the Necklace) exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100.

The Man simply can't get it because he uses a Weak Emergence, where the Whole is no more than the sum of the parts (by The Man, the Whole has a temperature of 110).

Bye.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By understanding REI one develops a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, where
the Whole is not the sum of the Parts.

Some analogy: a necklace is a Whole\Parts universe, where the Whole aspect of this
universe is a string, and the Part aspect of this universe is a bead.

No amount of beads can be a string. Furthermore, the string exists independently of the
existence of the beads. In other words, the magnitude of existence of the Whole is greater
than the magnitude of existence of any sum of Parts.

By using a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, any cardinal of some collection of
Parts is smaller than the cardinal of the Whole (by OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the
measurement unit of the existence of a thing).
 
Last edited:
An open letter

Dear X,

You write:

So far, I did not see any reason to believe that your way of looking at points (recursive distinguishability) leads to any new way of thinking.

You are right. If you are looking only on the point you miss the new way of thinking, which is not less than the interaction between a line as a non-local atom and a point as a local atom, as the mutually independent building-blocks of a one universe.

Organic Mathematics is a new way of Strong Emergence reasoning development.

Contrary to Weak Emergence reasoning, where the Whole is the sum of its Parts, by Standard Strong Emergence reasoning the Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts.

So, by standard Strong Emergence reasoning, the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Organic Mathematics takes a further step and develops a Strong Emergence reasoning where the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its', but 'the') Parts.

The Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its', but 'the') Parts iff the Whole and the Parts are not derived from each other, and as much as I know, this is a new way of thinking.

I will be glade if you explicitly show me that I am wrong, by direct me to an existing theory that is actually based on the notion that the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its', but 'the') Parts.

Here is a part of my paper with Moshe Klein:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf (page 17)
"By understanding REI (Relation Element Interaction) one develops a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, where the Whole is not the sum of the Parts.

Some analogy: a necklace is a Whole\Parts universe, where the Whole aspect of this universe is a string, and the Part aspect of this universe is a bead.

No amount of beads can be a string. Furthermore, the string exists independently of the existence of the beads. In other words, the magnitude of existence of the Whole is greater than the magnitude of existence of any sum of Parts.

By using a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, any cardinal of some collection of Parts is smaller than the cardinal of the Whole (by OM , Cardinal or Magnitude is the measurement unit of the existence of a thing).

According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence. If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a thing that is less than total existence. This addition of Parts to the Whole is equivalent to adding cold water to hot water, for example:

If the temperature of the water is 100 and we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110. Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100.

The Whole is greater than the result of Whole+Parts exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100."

Dear X, in my opinion you can understand this quote iff you read very carefully http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf from top to bottom, before you air your view about it.

I will appreciate very much you detailed reply about the content of OMPT.pdf

I am fully opened to your criticism.


Sincerely yours,

Doron Shadmi
 
Dear X,

You write:

So far, I did not see any reason to believe that your way of looking at points (recursive distinguishability) leads to any new way of thinking.

You are right....


So, you are so incapable of defending your notions with real people you have resorted to a dialog with yourself?
 
So, you are so incapable of defending your notions with real people you have resorted to a dialog with yourself?

Real people, in this case, are at least "more,less than X" viewers.


Since you are "nothing more, nothing less than X" viewer, you can't get it.
 
Last edited:
Real people, in this case, are at least "more,less than X" viewers.


Since you are "nothing more, nothing less than X" viewer, you can't get it.


Your inability to define your terms, use those terms consistently, and present your notion without contradiction or as any sort of logical progression is your failing, and yours alone.

Don't blame others for your shortcomings.
 
The Man you simply forcing "Weak emergence" on "Strong emergence".

If you actually understood the meanings of those terms you might realize how absurd and contradictory that statement is. Instead you just need some unknown contributing factors for your notions, so you can continue to claim whatever you want without feeling compeled to actually support your claims, and think you can obtain that by just claiming “Strong emergence”


Whole is Fullness.

Dog is Rain.

Necklace is a collection.

Yes of parts, the parts in your necklace are the string and the beads.

The cardinal of a collection < cardinal of Fullness ( = ).

If ‘Fullness’ has a cardinality then it is also a collection meaning set since that is what cardinality applies to.

There is no use to talk with you anymore, because you have no ability to get a "Strong emergence" reasoning.

What, so your reasoning is based on your inability to understand or to know all the contributing factors or ‘reasons’ for the emergent property you are considering , which is referred to as ‘strong emergence’? So your ‘reasoning’ simply lacks, well, reasons.


This is exactly what you are doing by forcing "Weak emergence" on "Strong emergence".

Well now we have new Doronophrases of ‘Strong emergence reasoning’ and ‘Weak emergence reasoning’


Just who or where are you quoting this following BS from?

Here is some analogy that shows why The Man does not understand the concept of Whole of Strong Emergence.

According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence.

If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a thing that is less than total existence.

Well then don’t add negative parts, I don’t expect you to understand that because it would require math in your 'mathematical theory'.

This addition of parts is equivalent to adding cold water to hot water, for example:



If the temperature of the water is 100 and we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110. Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100.

So what, if you add water that is hotter the temperature goes up. You have this bizarre tendency to think of simple and trivial relations as some analogy of your notions, but only if you can severely restrict the conditions and ignore the fundamentals of the example you give.

The same holds about Whole and Necklace.

Sure, pour hotter water on necklace in whole or in part and it gets hotter, pour cooler water on it and it gets cooler, simple and trivial.

The Whole is greater than the result of Whole+Parts (= the Necklace) exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100.

The Man simply can't get it because he uses a Weak Emergence, where the Whole is no more than the sum of the parts (by The Man, the Whole has a temperature of 110).

No Doron I am well versed in thermodynamics, which apparently you simply do not understand. You could try researching it, but I warn you it actually uses math instead of just including the word ‘math’ as you do in your claims.






Don’t let the door hit you in your ‘strong emergence’ on your way out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back so soon, well that didn’t take long

By understanding REI one develops a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, where
the Whole is not the sum of the Parts.

A ‘mathematical theory’ would actually require, well, math. Certainly you have no idea what ‘strong emergence’ or math infer if you are going to claim a ‘mathematical theory of Strong Emergence’.

Some analogy: a necklace is a Whole\Parts universe, where the Whole aspect of this
universe is a string, and the Part aspect of this universe is a bead.

The same bad analogy where what you call the ‘whole’ is not actually the ‘whole’, but just another ‘part’ so your ‘parts’ are not ‘part’ of your ‘whole’.

No amount of beads can be a string. Furthermore, the string exists independently of the
existence of the beads.

Simply trivial since they are both just different parts of that ‘whole’ ‘necklace’.

In other words, the magnitude of existence of the Whole is greater
than the magnitude of existence of any sum of Parts.

“Oh waiter, can I get some math with that ‘magnitude of existence’ and ‘any sum of Parts’”? Since after all this is a “mathematical theory of Strong Emergence”


By using a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, any cardinal of some collection of
Parts is smaller than the cardinal of the Whole (by OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the
measurement unit of the existence of a thing).


Well we are still waiting for you to actually use any “mathematical theory” and not simply refer to one or try to employ same bizarre interpretation you have of a theory that is not explicitly part of that theory or its required applications.
 
Last edited:
According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence. If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a thing that is less than total existence. This addition of Parts to the Whole is equivalent to adding cold water to hot water, for example:

If the temperature of the water is 100 and we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110. Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100.

The Whole is greater than the result of Whole+Parts exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100."

Nice how you look at the property of something, but not the something itself. If I have water at 40 degrees (you pick your scale) and add water at 45 degrees doesn't mean I have water at 95 degrees, it means that I have more water.

Get my thermodynamics out of your ...... well, whatever it is.
 
Nice how you look at the property of something, but not the something itself. If I have water at 40 degrees (you pick your scale) and add water at 45 degrees doesn't mean I have water at 95 degrees, it means that I have more water.

Get my thermodynamics out of your ...... well, whatever it is.
So what, if you add water that is hotter the temperature goes up.
You can't.

Whole's "temperature" in the analogy is always > than the "temperature" of the sum of Parts.

In other words, you both have missed the analogy.
The Man said:
If ‘Fullness’ has a cardinality then it is also a collection
"Thank you" for ignoring again my non-standard interpretation of the concept of Cardinal.

By OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the measurement unit of the existence of a thing.


The cardinal of Whole = Fullness > the cardinal of Collection.

The cardinal of Emptiness < the cardinal of Collection.


You simply can't get new ideas. I am doing my best in order to explain OM's non-standard interpretation of Cardinal, Fullness, Collection, Emptiness, Strong Emergence and more ...

You did nothing in order to get it.

You simply can't think out of your box.

If you actually understood the meanings of those terms ...

I understand the standard Strong Emergence reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

By understand it I use a non-standard Strong Emergence reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

You, The Man, can't get it because you can't think out of your box.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Man is profound examples of a total lose case of a closed system that naturally die by Entropy.

After his last several posts, it is now clear that any reply to him is a waste of energy.
Edited to fix quote tags. You need to be more careful with these quote tags, doronshadmi. Otherwise you attribute words to someone who didn't say them.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence.

You don't say.

Ah well. I guess we need to add basic set theory to the long list of things Doron doesn't understand about mathematics.

Sad, the way a man can waste his life.
 
Last edited:
You can't.

Whole's "temperature" in the analogy is always > than the "temperature" of the sum of Parts.

In other words, you both have missed the analogy.

That would be the failure of the analogy itself and the person that proffered it. Your analogy; your failure.

"Thank you" for ignoring again my non-standard interpretation of the concept of Cardinal.

Cardinal is not a concept nor is it subject to interpretation. The word you meant, by the way, was cardinality, but that word, too, is not in need of your special interpretation.

If your goal really were to communicate, your own private "non-standard interpretations" would never come up. You would be using standard terminology the way everyone else understands them, and you'd define any new terminology needed for something new.

You do neither. It has become apparent why that is, too. On the one hand, you don't understand basic mathematical concepts nor the terms that go along, so you can't use terminology properly. On the other, your thought processes are so muddled and your concepts so twisted, every attempt to lay out definitions immediately turns into a contradiction.

Prove me wrong: Tell us what you mean by "distinction is a first-order property".
 
Still eagerly awaiting your response to this:
zooterkin said:
Let us make sense of it like this:
I was with you up to here...

Each cardinal > 1 is defined by a recursion of two basic states of Distinction, which are:

1) Superposition of Ids (the id of a given element is not crisp).

Superposition of ids of a given element is notated as n , where n = 2 → ∞


2) Crisp id of the given element is notated as n where n=1
And what is your definition of 'crisp'? How do you distinguish between those two ids, both referred to as n? What do they mean, and what do you do with them?
Organic Number 4 is the result of universe ____\. , such that 4 = _____ and 1 = . , gathered by ______

And?
 
Cardinal is not a concept nor is it subject to interpretation.
Says the insider.

You would be using standard terminology the way everyone else understands them, and you'd define any new terminology needed for something new.

No.

I think out of the box, and one of things of an outsider is to make a paradigm-shift of so called "well defined ...".

I do not wish to communicate with you as long as you are an insider.
 
Last edited:
You can't.

Whole's "temperature" in the analogy is always > than the "temperature" of the sum of Parts.

In other words, you both have missed the analogy.

No Doron your ‘analogy’ simply does not support or reflect what you are trying to claim. As usual you are simply making a bad analogy.


"Thank you" for ignoring again my non-standard interpretation of the concept of Cardinal.

Again Doron it is not incumbent on anyone to simply accept your interpretations. It is your responsibility to show your interpretation to be meaningful and have utility that perhaps other interpretations do not. So far you can not even show your interpretation to be consistent with, well, your interpretation. Making it both meaningless and without utility

By OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the measurement unit of the existence of a thing.

None of which have you yet defined in any self consistent fashion. Simply claiming the already well established concept of cardinality as your “measurement unit of the existence of a thing” is not a definition or indication of any usefulness of your “measurement unit of the existence of a thing”, since the useful and meaningful aspects are part of that standard interpretation. You need to accurately and consistently define you own notions, Doron, not simply try to hijack other concepts and claim you are just applying a “non-standard interpretation”.

The cardinal of Whole = Fullness > the cardinal of Collection.

The cardinal of Emptiness < the cardinal of Collection.

Again cardinality is specifically about collections or sets, if you what to talk about something associated to whatever you might consider not to be a collection or set then you are not talking about cardinality. Again hijacking other concepts and claiming “non-standard interpretation” will not float your notions, but will just demonstrate your inability to either understand and apply those concepts or to simply express your own notions and thus just send you sinking right down to the depths of your own ignorance.

You simply can't get new ideas. I am doing my best in order to explain OM's non-standard interpretation of Cardinal, Fullness, Collection, Emptiness and more ...

Yet it still has not dawned on you that the problem is entirely with your notions and how you go about ‘explaining’ them. Nor does it seem apparent to you that really none of this is ‘new’ in any way for anyone (at least not for the posters I have read) but you. Vague and baseless assertions are certainly not new to most of the members on this forum and when we actually start pinning you down on some of the terminology and definitions you try squirming away by switching terminology and definitions, that too is not new for us.

You did nothing in order to get it.

Doron, you still haven’t provided anything to ‘get’. I’m sure in your mind this all seems so important and significant, so much so that you somehow attach the existence of our civilization to your notions. Yet you can not explain anything about your ‘new ideas’ consistently. What you do say that is consistent is simply trivial and not ‘new’ to anyone who has bothered to do some simple research. That these simply trivial and contradictory assertions of yours seem so significant to you just demonstrates that you are attaching far more meaning and significance to them then they merit themselves or that you could ever accurately express with them.


You simply can't think out of your box.

Get out of your ‘box’ Doron start doing some darn research, use established concepts and support your claims. A ‘non-standard interpretation’ only means that you have either not bothered to understand the standard interpretation or can not understand the standard interpretation and most likely that concept simply does not support your claims. Forcing you to hide your own concept behind something established and well defined by calling it a ‘non-standard interpretation’. Define your own concepts and use of terms, stick to those definition, concepts and keep it consistent. Should you find them lacking or contradictory, refine them or do away with them. Do not be afraid to engage in open discussion, listen to what people are telling you, let them know when or why you need to change terms, concepts or interpretation, be specific and support your claims. As noted before you have a very basic fundamental problem with the basis of your notions that you claim it is based on independent aspects that you say can not be researched independently. This is a fundamental flaw; until you can resolve that issue your notions will remain self-inconsistent. The rest is just you wasting your time, as for me, I’ve got time to waste.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom